Quote from: Lauda on August 23, 2018, 07:39:00 PM

Quote from: OgNasty on August 23, 2018, 07:28:45 PM

Wow, it looks like you got negatively rated for pointing this out?

He got neg. rated for intentionally and blatantly slandering me on my trust wall. Not a single thing posted by him is true; not a single sentence[1].

He even posted evidence... Again, instead of retaliating to facts with negative trust, why not engage in an actual discussion and explain what people are missing? The blockchain is there to prove the truth so situations like this don't happen. You have purposely tried to keep the details secret for some reason, and that isn't acceptable for an escrow.

Quote from: Rmcdermott927 on August 23, 2018, 02:48:12 PM

Heres your thread from now and your thread from November 2017. You decided to change the rules after you had the funds in hand.

https://imgur.com/gallery/pSfxTSl

Quote from: Lauda on August 23, 2018, 07:39:00 PM

Signing from multisig =/= signing from individual keys used for said multisig. This is clear and you would know why even the latter isn't feasible in our setup had you actually read the thread before posting.

Semantics really is the weakest argument. However, now that you understand what it is people expect of a multisig escrow (proving ownership of funds by signing a message from the key you control in the multisig address) what is the new excuse for why you can't do it? Why are you purposely being difficult and secretive when you have a public blockchain available to prove funds and explain every transfer made?